Care Sector: Case Law

Case Law

Oftsed Law:

Oftsed Law in England

The Old Co-Operative Day Nursery Ltd v HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) [2016] EWHC 1126 (Admin) (23 May 2016)

At paragraph 73 (Inspections should take into account previous inspections):

1. A system of inspection which ignores previous inspections runs the risk of turning the whole process into a lottery. It would give the individual inspector on the particular day of the inspection an arbitrary power and influence. It would prevent systematic monitoring and consistency of approach. It is most definitely not to be encouraged.

And at paragraph 78 (Irrationality of conclusions):

1. Accordingly, I conclude that, in the round, the report reaches irrational conclusions. In particular, just like Cranston J, I consider that the fact that the claimant went from ‘grade 1 outstanding’ in all three categories to ‘grade 4 inadequate’ in all three categories in the space of seven months, before going back to ‘grade 1 outstanding’ in all three categories, just three months later, indicates that this was a rogue inspection and report. On analysis, I consider that this happened primarily because of: a) the unlawful investigation into and adjudication upon the complaint (and the unjustified findings reached to uphold that complaint); and b) the inspector’s failure to have regard to the previous report and the previous history of the nursery. This second failure alone meant that the report (and the evaluation of ‘grade 4 inadequate’) was irrational.

And at paragraph 87 (Damages: No Claim for Reputational Damage unless there is malice on the part of the inspectorate):

87. … I do not consider that the claimant can have had any reasonable expectation of being able to make a claim for damages consequent upon damage to reputation in this sort of situation. Section 151 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 provides that reports of this kind are privileged unless its publication can be shown to have been made with malice. There can therefore be no claim for reputational damage in the absence of malice. There is no malice in the present case. Accordingly, the claimant would have known that reports of this kind do not give rise to claims for damages as a result of alleged loss of reputation.

 per Coulson, J. (May 2016)

Call us without obligation and in strict confidence to discuss your regulated activity law assistance requirements.